V. I. Lenin

An Open Letter to All Pro-Party Social-Democrats

Written:Written after November 2Z2 (December 5), 1910Published:First published January 21, 1932, in the newspaperPravdaNo. 21.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1974],

      Moscow,Volume 16,

      pages333-344.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

Atthe plenary meeting of the Central Committee in January 1910, we, as
representatives of the Bolshevik faction, dissolved our faction and transferred
the money and other property belonging to it to three well-known. leaders of the
international Social-Democratic movement. This transfer and equally the
dissolution of the faction wereconditionalsteps. Our conditions for
taking these steps are known from our statement at the plenum, a statement
adopted by the plenum and published in the very first number of the Central
Organ issued after the plenum.

Brieflystated, these conditions were that the other factions (and in
the first place the faction of Golosists, i.e., the Mensheviks who
published and supportedGolos Sotsial-Demokrata) should carry out
their dutyloyally, i.e., sincerely and fully, namely,

(1) the fight against liquidationism and
otzovism, which by a unanimously adopted resolution of the plenum were declared
to be a sign of bourgeois influence on the proletariat, and

(2) the dissolution of their factions.

Atthe present time, after ayear’sexperience, a year of
waiting, we have become completely and finally convinced that neither the
Golosists nor the Vperyodists havefulfilled eitherof these two
conditions.

Theresult of this conviction as far as we are concerned was, firstly, the
publication ofRabochaya Gazetaand, secondly, the statement about the
return of the money and property, a statement we handed recently to the Central
Committee on December 5, 1910.

Afterthis declaration the state of affairs in form and sub stance is as
follows. We hadconditionallyhanded over allour property and forces to support the anti-liquidationist and
anti-otzovist work for the restoration of the Party and its full unity. The
violation by the Golosists and Vperyodists of the conditions they had
accepted is a violation of our agreement. Cancelling this agreement
violated by the liquidators and otzovists, we shall workas beforefor the restoration of the Party and its full unity, for the implementation
of an anti-liquidationist and anti-otzovist policy, but we must carry out
this worknot with those alliesthat at the plenum (owing to faith
in their promises) were admitted to participation in the Party
centres. Since, by general recognition and by repeated statements of
delegates of national organisations at the plenum and at other Party
meetings, conferences, etc., it is our Bolshevik faction that has always
been regarded as bearing thegreatest responsibilityfor the state
of affairs in the Party, we consider it our duty to set out frankly our
views on the state of affairs in the Party and on the significance of the
steps we have taken.

TheJanuary plenum in 1910 was of very great importance in the history
of our Party. It definitively laid down thetactical lineof the
Party for the period of counter-revolution by establishing, infurther
developmentof the December resolutions of 1908, that both
liquidationism and otzovism are manifestations of the influence of the
bourgeoisie on the proletariat. Further, the plenumlinkedthe
question of putting an end to factions in our Party—that is to say, the
necessity of bringing aboutrealunity in the Social-Democratic
Labour Party—with the formulation of the Party’s ideological and
political aims in the present historical period.

Weare convinced that these two things accomplished by the plenum in
January 1910 are ofhistoricsignificance and that their results
are much more important, much more vital, much more lasting, than they may
seem to the superficial observer.

Butthese results were terribly vitiated by the muddledphrase-mongeringabout them. There is nothing so inimical to the
spirit of Social-Democracy and so harmful asphrase-mongering. And
“conciliatory”phrase-mongeringis no less harmful and liable to
lead people astray than liquidationistand otzovist phrase-mongering. This “conciliatory” phrase mongering
obscures theessenceof the matter, substitutes aspirations and
good intentions for an estimate of the real tendencies and real
relationship of forces in the Party, impedes therapprochementof
those who could and should come closer together by attempts at playing at
unity with those who at the present time do not want to and cannot unite.

Duringthe year that has elapsed since the January plenum this
phrase-mongering has exhausted itself and shown what its fruits are. If now
from bitter experience of the heroes of “conciliatory” phrases the Partylearnsthe lesson hownotto set about “conciliation”
and the abolition of factions, then the year since the plenum will not have
passed in vain.

Phrase-mongeringamounted to asserting that it is sufficient
to obtain “promises” about the abolition of factions, to compose the
central bodies out of the most heterogeneous elements, to “balance”
opposed elements, and an important step towards the abolition of factions
will have been made.

Theyear’s experience showed, as it could not fail to show, that the
phrase-mongers’ method was a complete failure. It is impossible to build
anything on promises, it is ludicrous to base anything on the union of
heterogeneous elements that are incapable of uniting. On the morrow of the
plenum everything in its decisions and measures that was basedon
phrase-mongeringproved to be a soap-bubble. The decisions,
resolutions and artificially composed bodies were allin facta
dead letter, lifeless institutions. But what wasrealin the
actions of the plenum underwent development, was strengthened, showed its
effects in the work, and became clothed in new forms of existenceoutsideandapart fromthe resolutions.

Itwould be difficult to imagine a more striking and instructive lesson
than that of the, events which took place during the year following the
plenum, a lesson offered to those people who had delighted in
phrase-mongering, vain good intentions and playing at the allocation of
seats in various bodies and so forth.

Whatwas it that was real in the actions of the plenum? What was real
was its indication of theconnectionbetween the ideological and
politicalcontentof Party work and the abolition of
factions. What was real was therapprochementof those factions or trends which came together not on the basis of cheap
conciliatory phrases, promises, or playing at the allocation of seats in
the central bodies, buton the basis of work, agreement in theirunderstandingof the ideological and political tasks of the
moment, agreementin actual facton the formulation of these
tasks, and their accomplishment.

Aslong as magniloquent and cheap phrases about the abolition of
factions, were being uttered by people who under stood neither the
objective source of the disagreements nor theactualsituation
thatin-factensured the independence from the Party of certain
literary groups (such as that of Mr. Potresov and Co. or that of the
Machist and otzovist literati), for so long the phrases remained empty,
impotent phrases. But as soon as, owing to a change in the objective
conditions, a rapprochementin work, a rapprochement in theunderstandingof these objective conditions, began to grow in the
two basic and main factions that have left their imprint on the whole
history of the workers’ movement during the revolution—even more than
that, on thewholehistory of the revolution in Russia—no
efforts on the part of intriguers who want to undermine this rapprochement
or sow distrust in it can halt the process that has begun.

Duringthe past year the actual state of Party affairs arising after
the plenum has become quite clear. It is a fact that the Golosists and
Vperyodistssignedthe resolutions on the fight against
liquidationism and otzovism but in reality conducted and Eire conductingalltheir propaganda and agitation,alltheir practical
activity, in such a way as to sup port and defend liquidationism and
otzovism.

Foranyone who has eyes to see, this fact shows how bankrupt is a
policy that is satisfied with paper resolutions and how harmful are phrases
that are not in accord with deeds.

Furthersit is a fact that neither the Golosists nor the Vperyodists
relinquished their factional independencefor a single
moment. Both of these factions continue to exist in the fullest actualindependenceof the Party, with their own funds, their own organs,
their own agencies. The factionalorganisation of the otzovists takes the form of the so-called “school”
abroad (in reality it is an institution for systematic selection of agents
and planned conduct of organisational work apart from the Party and against
the Party). The “school” is supplemented by a separate publishing house
and means of transport. The Golosists’ factional organisation islooser(“freer”, less definite in form), the chief role being
played by the group of Mr. Potresov and Co., the group of the Sixteen, and
the group of Mikhail, Roman and Yuri and Co., which are absolutely
independent of the Party. The Golosists take an active part in these
groups, directing all propagandist, agitational and organisational activity
against the Party and at the same time not refraining from participation in
the Party centres in order systematically to undermine their significance
and demoralise them from within.

Nopro-Party Social-Democrat can fail to see what such a state of
affairs leads to.

Asregards publication of literature, the year’s experience has shown
that the Central Organ isin point of factbeing conducted by the
Bolsheviksplusthe Plekhanovitesagainstthe Golosists
on the editorial board. Life has overstepped the bounds created by
conciliatory phrase-mongering: the “conciliators” by promise, the
“conciliators” by office, the “conciliators” by instruction of the
liquidationist centres, have proved to be a sheerhindrance to the
work. Plekhanov and his fellow-thinkers, however, who made no promises
at the plenum, and who did not take up any office, provedactual
implementersof the Party line.

Theglaring contradiction between form and substance, between phrases
and deeds, between the obviously hypocritical existence of a supposedly
pro-Party collegium (the editorial board of the Central Organ) and the
actual activity in the Central Organ alongside this collegium brings very
great demoralisation into Party life. In order to put a stop to this
demoralisation, this degradation of what are formally Party institutions to
a role that evokes deserved ridicule and rejoicing on the part of enemies
of the Party, we must do away with hypocrisy and frankly say what actually
exists, frankly admit the conduct of Party work bytwofactions.

Asregards unity abroad, absolutely nothing has been done during the
year. Wherever the groups were splitpreviously they remain split now. The groups of Menshevik liquidators have
openly become groups in support ofGolos. The only rapprochement
that has been mapped out andactuallybegun is that between the
Bolsheviks and the Plekhanovites. The Central Committee Bureau Abroad, in
its capacity as co-ordinator of Social-Democratic work abroad, has become
an object of ridicule legitimately mocked at by the Vperyodists and
Golosists, who observe with satisfaction how the Party centre acts as a
collegium for provocatory affairs and for carrying out bureaucratic paper
work that is of no use to anyone.

Inthe most important sphere, that of organisational work locally in
Russia, absolutely nothing of any use to the Party has been accomplished
during the year. The Central Committee, which had toinvitethe
Mikhails, Romans and Yuris on the basis of the “promises” made to the
plenum, zealously set about this thankful task so worthy of a revolutionary
of inviting into the Party those who ridicule it and continue to harm it,
but even soafter a yearhave not succeeded in “inviting”
anyone. During this period, however, the anti-Party factions havestrengthenedtheir organisations against the Party: theVperyodfaction has developed and its agency has grown stronger,
Mr. Potresov’s group has grown stronger, as too have the other
liquidationist enterprises, which have continued to carry on propaganda
against the Party in a number of clubs, co-operative societies, etc., and
to intrigue against the Party among the Social-Democratic group in the
Duma. The role of the Central Committee, which during this time has been
occupied in “inviting” the liquidators or in aformal
correspondenceon matters concerning the “squabbles” of the
Golosists and Vperyodists, is a role that is positively humiliating and we
cannot permit the enemies of the Party to reduce the Central Committee to
this role.

Onlypeople quite incapable of thought or desirous of indulging in
petty intrigue can stillfail to seethat the continuance of such
a state of the Party centresinevitablyprepares the way for a
triumph of the liquidators and otzovists,, who observe with satisfaction
how the Central Committee has entangled itself, and continues to entangle
itself, in conciliatory phrase-mongering, inplayingat
conciliationwith those who do not want to be reconciled with the Party.

Theliquidators and otzovists have an excellent under standing of
conciliatory phrase-mongering and make excel lent use of it against the
Party. The hero of such phrases, Trotsky, has quite naturally become the
hero and sworn advocate of the liquidators and otzovists, with whom he
agreeson nothingtheoretically butin everythingpractically.

Favouredwith the assistance of this advocate, both the liquidators and
the otzovists have thoroughly mastered the tactics that consists of
incessantly vowing and swearing that they are pro-Party. This is repeated
byGolosand the platform of theVperyodgroup, while
they continuein factto disrupt the Party and carry out all
activities in an anti-Party spirit. Formal and verbal “conciliation” has
become a weapon of theGolosliquidators and Vperyodists.

Itgoes without saying that we, as representatives of the Bolshevik
trend, cannot play this role of dupes. Having waited a whole year, having
done everything possible through the pages of the Central Organ to make
clear the anti-Party character of the Vperyodists, Golosists and Trotsky,we cannot assume responsibilitybefore the Party for institutions
which occupy themselves with “invitations” to the liquidators and formal
correspondence on “business” raised by the Vperyodists. We want not
squabbles but work.

Wedesire to work jointly with those who want to work in the Party
spirit, and have actually proved their ability to do so, i.e., in the first
place with the pro-Party Mensheviks and the really non-factional
Social-Democrats. We do not desire to be responsible for squabbles with
those who do not want to work jointly with the Party, but want to work with
Mr. Potresov and the otzovists.

Thestate of affairs in Russia is such that intensified and harmonious
work is urgently required of the Party organisations abroad. The three-year
period of the golden days of the counter-revolution (1908–10) is evidently
coming to a close and being replaced by a period of incipient upsurge. The
summer strikes of the current year and the demonstrations on the occasion
of Tolstoy’s death are a clear indication of this. The Party’s
organisational work in Russia hasbecome weak in the extreme and this weakness has been most shamelessly
utilised by the Vperyodists and Golosists, who are developing their
anti-Party activity with the aid of the Russian and foreign factional
centres.

Undersuch conditions to continue playing at conciliation with these
factional centres, to close one’s eyes hypocritically to their
independence, to “invite” their representatives for a joint fight against
their own policy, to shield them in the eyes of the Party by accepting
their members in the centres—means dooming oneself to hopeless
squabbling. It meansputting a brake onthe work of the centres
abroad, which even without that has been slowed down to such an extent that
during the year it hasnotbeen possible to arrange asinglemeeting of the Central Committee in Russia, and not only
not a single conference, but not even an unofficial meeting of local Party
workers (whereas the otzovists’ “school” and the liquidators’ legal
organs repeatedly man aged to organise against the Party all sorts of
conferences and meetings of agents, correspondents of journals, and so on).

Weare obliged to repudiate responsibility for thiscompletestoppage of the work of those who have been entangled in conciliation with
the Golosists of these centres and to begin immediately the most energetic
independent work in uniting the orthodox Bolsheviks, pro-Party Mensheviks
and non-factional Social-Democrats for organising meetings, conferences,
regional bureaux, groups for connections with Party publications, etc. It
is to this work, which alone isactuallycapable of leading the
Party out of the impasse and freeing the centres from “courting” the
Golosists, that we are calling all pro-Party Social-Democrats.

Evenbefore the plenum, in the spring of 1909, in the name of the
Bolshevik faction, we proclaimed the policy of arapprochementwith the pro-Party Mensheviks, and since then this policy has borne
considerable fruit,despitethe unsuccessful attempt to trust the
“promises” of the Golosists and regard them as pro-Party elements. All
that has been done since then to really strengthen not the Vperyodist
propaganda nor the Golosist defence of liquidationism butthe line of
the Party, to really bring closer together the basic core ofboththe chief factions, has been done byusindependentlyof these unsuccessful attempts at conciliation
with the Golosists. And by divesting ourselves of responsibility for
continuing these attempts we are confident that we shall achieve a still
closer alignmentin workthroughRabochaya Gazeta,
through legal literature and through the activity abroad of the groups of
supporters ofRabochaya Gazetaand supporters of Plekhanov.

Afterthe plenum, which in the most clear-cut way posed the question of
factions and their abolition, for the first time raising this questionin connectionwith the ideological and political line of the
factions themselves, i.e., on the real basis of an estimate ofactual
rapprochement in workand not on the basis of empty promises, formal
undertakings and suchlike phrases—after the plenum and a year’s
experience of its results it isimpossibleto continue the old
hypocritical playing at hide-and-seek.

Wemust act openly. We must have the courage to say what the position
is. If the Central Committee desire to tell the Party frankly and openly
what the position is, this simple statement will be a tremendously powerful
weapon in their hands, a hundred times more weighty than any kind of
resolutions, wishes, condemnations, expulsions, etc.

Tosay what the position is means acknowledging that the attempt to
abolishallfactions has, unfortunately, been frustrated by the
Golosists and Vperyodists,but the rapprochementof the basic
core, of the really pro-Party elements of the two main factions, their
closer alignment with the pro-Party elements of the nationals and
non-factional Social-Democrats, has made a step forward. If Trotsky and
similar advocates of the liquidators and otzovists declare this
rapprochement “devoid of political content”, such speeches testify only
to Trotsky’s entire lack of principle, therealhostility of his
policy to the policy of theactual(and not merely confined to
promises) abolition of factions. Topromisethis abolition after a
year’s experience of the results of the plenum is sheer chicanery. But
whereas the abolition of factions is a mere phrase, therapprochementof the main trends in the two chief factions is afact. No blocs, no magniloquent pledges, no promises of the
disappearance of disagreements, follow from this fact, but what does follow
is arealpossibilityof building the Partyin practice, based on
the co-operation ofpartof the Mensheviks andpartof
the Bolsheviks.

Ifthe Central Committee desires with absolute consistency to adopt the
course of such an acknowledgement and such work, if it desires to make all
the central bodies the organ of such a rapprochement, to free them
completely from unworthy and harmful “courting” of the Golosists or
“invitations” to the Golosists, to afford the possibility of working
without squabbles, then we shall support this policy with all our heart and
soul and all our strength, a policy thatin factwe have been
pursuing since the spring of 1909, i.e., already for two whole years.

Ifthe Central Committee does not want to draw this inevitable
conclusion from the lessons of the plenum and its results, then let it hand
over the conduct of Party work—and of work for the restoration of
unity—to the alliance of the Golosists, Vperyodists and Trotsky. This
will be more straightforward and honest, and we shall keep aloof from this
alliance which has in actual fact demonstrated its anti-Party character.

Weare perfectly aware, of course, that in connection with our step
certain people (and among them, assuredly, experienced advocates of the
liquidators and otzovists) will cry out about a “split”. However stupid
and hypocritical such cries may be we must pause to warn uninformed people
about these probable objections.

Inits formal aspect our step—the demand for the return of money and
termination of the agreement that we concluded on very definite
conditions—is absolutely legitimate. The conditions of our agreement with
the Central Committee were openly stated, printed in the Central Organ and,
accept edunanimouslyby the Central Committee at the plenum. By
accepting theseconditionsin the name of the whole Party and
printing them in the Party’s Central Organ, the Central Committee thereby
unequivocally acknowledged that onlywith the fulfilmentin actual
fact of these conditions could it demand of us a definite mode of
action. No one can deny that these conditions have not been fulfilled by
the Golosistsand Vperyodists, in spite of the resolution they signed. Our formal right
tocancelthe agreement is therefore indisputable. By cancelling
the agreement we proclaim an independent fight for the Party principle,
independent work on building the Partywithout thosewho have
proved by a year’s experience their unwillingness to work on this,together with thoseMensheviks and non-factionalists, who have
proved the opposite. If the agreement, which was directly and explicitly
dependent on the Golosists and Vperyodists coming over to the pro-Party
position, has proved to have been violated bythem, it is our full
right andour dutyto cancel the agreement with people who have
flouted the Party, and to seek all possible forms of closer alignment with
people who support the Party.

Muchmore important than the formal aspect, however, is the factual
state of affairs. Especially illuminating inthisrespect is the
hypocrisy of the Golosists and Vperyodists, who both at the plenum and
after it continued to make declarations in the press about their pro-Party
attitude. The hypocrisy of such asseverations, the glaring falsity of cries
about a split on the part ofsuchpeople, is so obvious that it is
not worth wasting many words on it. It was the Golosists and the
Vperyodists who created an actual split immediately after the plenum—or
rather, who did not cease treating it despite their promises at the plenum;
it was they who during the whole year continued this split, intensified it,
and supported theindependencefrom the Party of the group of
Potresov and Co., the group of literati, the organisers of the “Machist”
school, etc., etc. To allow such splitters to remain in the Party centres
means the utter ruin of the Party’s cause. To let the previous position
remain, where these splitters took advantage of their presence in the Party
centres to put a brake on all work, todemoralise the Party from
withinfor the benefit of Mr. Potresov or the leaders of the
“Machist” school, means to do tremendous, irreparable damage to the cause
of Party unity.

Longago it was said that not everyone who calls out “Lord, Lord”
will enter the kingdom of heaven. And, after the experience of the plenum,
we must repeat: not everyone who voices cheap phrases about partyism is
really pro-Party. The Golosists and Vperyodists split the Party after theplenum. That is a fact. Trotsky was their advocate in this matter. That is
also a fact.

Thereisnoother way of halting the split, of preventing it
from spreading than by strengthening, consolidating and formally confirming
the rapprochement of those whoactuallycarried out Party activity
after the plenum, i.e., the pro-Party Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.

Announcingour view of Party affairs to all pro-Party Mensheviks,
non-factional pro-Party Social-Democrats and Bolsheviks, as well as all
national Social-Democratic organisations, we invite the Bolshevik groups in
Russia to begin immediately to rally aroundRabochaya Gazetaand
to set about preparing those meetings and conferences which are essential
for restoring the Party and which, owing to the present state of affairs,
must inevitably begin with the most modest, unofficial and informal
attempts. To give in print more details about the nature of such attempts
would be out of place.

Weinvite the Bolshevik groups abroad to reorganise themselves in such
a way as to cease all connection with the Vperyodists, who have fully
proved their anti-Party character, and without the hindrance of these
defenders of otzovism to begin systematic work for strengthening the Party,
closer alignment with pro-Party elements of other factions and the creation
of joint clubs, lectures, reports, etc., to take preparatory steps towards
a real union abroad of all those who do not followVperyodandGolos. If the existence of two parallel groups is inevitable where
there are Golosists, it is not seemly for Bolsheviks to tolerate any longer
in their group the anti-Party Vperyodists. Let them find a refuge among the
Golosists.

The editorial Board ofRabochaya
Gazeta